Muhammad

[Muffled]

In the time of Muhammad the puberty was the sign of when someone went from childhood to adulthood.

If we look at Europe about the same time kings could Marry 12 year old girls, so it is not that Muhammad was a sick pervert, it was common to Marry in a young age many places.

I believe actually a child could be betrothed at birth. Sold to the highest bidder I suppose.

 

[Spirit of Light]

I believe actually a child could be betrothed at birth. Sold to the highest bidder I suppose.

I do not know

 

[ChristineM]

Those 2 groups did not become the Sunni and Shia, they became Kharijites, Mutazelites, 'traditionists', and all sorts of other sectarian identities. Centuries later, after Islam had evolved significantly and for reasons completely unconnected to 632, some of them became Sunnis.

Serious question, do you understand the following text and why it is relevant?

The stage was set for a confrontation between the caliph and the ulama. The link between Iraq and the ashãb sunna may be explained by the fact that the Mihna was initiated and enforced primarily upon the ulama of Iraq.46 The caliph wanted the ulama to submit to his will and acknowledge him, as caliph, as the religious authority to guide all believers. One of the ulama who directly opposed the caliph was Ahmad b. Hanbal who, by any standard, was pivotal in the development of Sunnism.47 Paradoxically, the Mihna resulted in the opposite of what the caliph intended: it united the opposition as the ulama rallied around the figure of Ibn Hanbal, who, together with other ashãb sunna , said that a caliph does not define Islam. They rejected the caliph's carefully crafted rational arguments, while paying lip service to al-Ma'mūn's demands.48 The ashãb sunna highlighted their accounts about the correct behavior of a Muslim rather than a caliph's opinion about what a Muslim should believe. Thus the first and most important tenet of Sunnism was established in opposition to the caliph's will and a momentous step was taken in the crystallization of Sunnism as we know it.

The Appellation "Ṣāḥib Sunna" in Classical Islam: How Sunnism Came To Be - John A. Nawasit

As i said, a tree existed before it was called a tree

 

[Mock Turtle]

I believe I can remember the uproar when Jerry Lee Lewis married his 13 year old cousin. Different strokes for different folks I suppose but it seems less than pure to me.

Mainly because he visited the UK after just getting married and perhaps he didn't realise the kind of reaction he would get here, even if the marriage was legal in the USA.

 

[Augustus]

As i said, a tree existed before it was called a tree

Interesting that an atheist should adopt such an overly sectarian Sunni theological position. Could just say you didn't understand it

By your logic it would be accurate to describe St Paul as a Protestant because 'a tree existed before it was called a tree' and anyone who questioned this would be engaging in 'apologetics'.

You still haven't explained why you think religious narratives based on 200 years of oral transmission across diverse societies and cultures in an environment of sectarian and tribal conflict are objective history and cannot be questioned btw. Even orthodox Muslims believe divine providence was involved in such a miraculous preservation of 'truth'.

 

[ChristineM]

Interesting that an atheist should adopt such an overly sectarian Sunni theological position. Could just say you didn't understand it

By your logic it would be accurate to describe St Paul as a Protestant because 'a tree existed before it was called a tree' and anyone who questioned this would be engaging in 'apologetics'.

You still haven't explained why you think religious narratives based on 200 years of oral transmission across diverse societies and cultures in an environment of sectarian and tribal conflict are objective history and cannot be questioned btw. Even orthodox Muslims believe divine providence was involved in such a miraculous preservation of 'truth'.

Here you you again, and full of bs as well, wtf has Saulus got to do with the muslim divide?

As yet you have done nothing to refute my sources, you have cited later history a though a time machine changes fact

I have never said they can't be questioned,i have repeatedly asked you to show where they are wrong, a task you have repeatedly failed

 

[Augustus]

Here you you again, and full of bs as well, wtf has Saulus got to do with the muslim divide?

Because if a Muslim in 632 can be claimed as a Sunni, then a Christian in 60AD can be claimed as a Protestant. A tree was a tree before it was named after all.

The problem is you don't know what a Sunni is, or anything about the first few centuries of Islam so you think that Sunni = 'not a Shia' (if not you can explain what you do think it means).

One of the reasons Sunnis emerged was that they rejected the power of the Caliph to decide on religious orthodoxy in favour of the religious scholars. It was a 9th C power struggle that had nothing to do with 632 seeing as the things that the religious scholars were claiming as their source of legitimacy didn't exist.

I have never said they can't be questioned,i have repeatedly asked you to show where they are wrong, a task you have repeatedly failed

You just said they were 'objective history', and out of hand dismissed Oxford and Harvard professors as 'apologists' simply for questioning this 'objective' theological narrative. Where is the room for questioning in that?

Given that I've provided evidence that shows Sunnism emerged in the 9th C with reference to 10+ scholarly sources, the juvenile attempts to pretend these don't exist is a bit weird for a fully grown adult

It's now up to you to show it existed in the 7th C any more than Protestantism existed in 60AD by explaining what you think a Sunni is and why you think they existed in 632 (whatever they were called then). Saying "a tree is a tree" is not an argument, it is no different from saying 'they are Sunni because I say so!'.

But you won't do this, because you can't and we both know that.

 

[ChristineM]

Because if a Muslim in 632 can be claimed as a Sunni, then a Christian in 60AD can be claimed as a Protestant. A tree was a tree before it was named after all.

The problem is you don't know what a Sunni is, or anything about the first few centuries of Islam so you think that Sunni = 'not a Shia' (if not you can explain what you do think it means).

One of the reasons Sunnis emerged was that they rejected the power of the Caliph to decide on religious orthodoxy in favour of the religious scholars. It was a 9th C power struggle that had nothing to do with 632 seeing as the things that the religious scholars were claiming as their source of legitimacy didn't exist.



You just said they were 'objective history', and out of hand dismissed Oxford and Harvard professors as 'apologists' simply for questioning this 'objective' theological narrative. Where is the room for questioning in that?

Given that I've provided evidence that shows Sunnism emerged in the 9th C with reference to 10+ scholarly sources, the juvenile attempts to pretend these don't exist is a bit weird for a fully grown adult

It's now up to you to show it existed in the 7th C any more than Protestantism existed in 60AD by explaining what you think a Sunni is and why you think they existed in 632 (whatever they were called then). Saying "a tree is a tree" is not an argument, it is no different from saying 'they are Sunni because I say so!'.

But you won't do this, because you can't and we both know that.

I said the split.

 

[Augustus]

I said the split.

The idea that there have been Sunni and Shia fighting since the succession is somewhat misleading. Sunni identity didn't really emerge for another few centuries

It was actually an argument over succession following Mohammeds death

The Origins Of The Shiite-Sunni Split.

Are you still unaware that you 'corrected' me on the idea that Sunni identity didn't really emerge for another few centuries, and that you labelled this any source that uses primary historical sources to show this relatively standard point as being 'apologetics'?

So if Sunni identity existed in 632 as you claim, does Sunni simply mean "not Shia"?

 

[ChristineM]

Are you still unaware that you 'corrected' me on the idea that Sunni identity didn't really emerge for another few centuries, and that you labelled this any source that uses primary historical sources to show this relatively standard point as being 'apologetics'?

So if Sunni identity existed in 632 as you claim, does Sunni simply mean "not Shia"?

I corrected you on the approximate year of the split.

I ask again, if you can prove my sources, that you repeated ridiculed, to be wrong then do so otherwise I am finishing here

 

[Augustus]

I corrected you on the approximate year of the split.

The approximate year of the purported split between an Ali faction and an Abu Bakr faction is not a 'correction' of a post about when Sunni Islam began.

I ask again, if you can prove my sources, that you repeated ridiculed, to be wrong then do so otherwise I am finishing here

I am demonstrating my argument is correct: that Sunni identity emerged centuries later.

Your sources say nothing about this as they are like the simplified version of the atom they teach to children in science class - a simplification to make something far more complex to make it easier to understand for those without a greater depth of knowledge.

A selection of proof from this thread for my statement that mistakenly attempted to correct:

1. Sunni Islam did not appear in history fully formed; but that it emerged through a complex historical process, a process which yielded widespread Sunni self-awareness no earlier than the late 9th century

2. The name “Sunni” abbreviates a phrase that better clarifies the Sunni movement’s ideological parameters: “ahl al-sunna waʾl-jamaʿa” (the People of the Tradition [of Muhammad] and the Community). As with Shiʿism, however, it is imperative that we not regard this tradition as emerging fully formed at the time of Muhammad. On the contrary, it took time to develop, often in relationship to a series of legal and theological disputes, certain answers to which would emerge as “orthodox.” Although many of these answers would at a later date be taken to have existed at the time of Muhammad, there is no clear evidence that they did.

3. One common mistake is to assume that Sunni Islam represents a normative Islam that emerged during the period after Muhammad's death, and that Sufism and Shi'ism developed out of Sunni Islam.[19] This perception is partly due to the reliance on highly ideological sources that have been accepted as reliable historical works, and also because the vast majority of the population is Sunni. Both Sunnism and Shiaism are the end products of several centuries of competition between ideologies. Both sects used each other to further cement their own identities and doctrines.

4. Sunni Islam is defined not by its allegiance to a particular individual (e.g., Ali and the ahl al-bayt) or institution (e.g., the Imamate), as Shiʿism is, but by following one of the four authentic schools of law that are envisaged as representing the true elaboration of Muhammad’s Sunna. These schools took generations to develop

5. The [9th C] caliph wanted the ulama to submit to his will and acknowledge him, as caliph, as the religious authority to guide all believers. One of the ulama who directly opposed the caliph was Ahmad b. Hanbal who, by any standard, was pivotal in the development of Sunnism... The ashãb sunna highlighted their accounts about the correct behavior of a Muslim rather than a caliph's opinion about what a Muslim should believe. Thus the first and most important tenet of Sunnism was established in opposition to the caliph's will and a momentous step was taken in the crystallization of Sunnism as we know it.

Is there any of the above you consider to be false or misleading? If you can't identify anything false, then you accept the truth of my statement that Sunni Islam emerged centuries later, and which you have studiously avoided addressing.

 

[ChristineM]

The approximate year of the purported split between an Ali faction and an Abu Bakr faction is not a 'correction' of a post about when Sunni Islam began.



I am demonstrating my argument is correct: that Sunni identity emerged centuries later.

Your sources say nothing about this as they are like the simplified version of the atom they teach to children in science class - a simplification to make something far more complex to make it easier to understand for those without a greater depth of knowledge.

A selection of proof from this thread for my statement that mistakenly attempted to correct:

1. Sunni Islam did not appear in history fully formed; but that it emerged through a complex historical process, a process which yielded widespread Sunni self-awareness no earlier than the late 9th century

2. The name “Sunni” abbreviates a phrase that better clarifies the Sunni movement’s ideological parameters: “ahl al-sunna waʾl-jamaʿa” (the People of the Tradition [of Muhammad] and the Community). As with Shiʿism, however, it is imperative that we not regard this tradition as emerging fully formed at the time of Muhammad. On the contrary, it took time to develop, often in relationship to a series of legal and theological disputes, certain answers to which would emerge as “orthodox.” Although many of these answers would at a later date be taken to have existed at the time of Muhammad, there is no clear evidence that they did.

3. One common mistake is to assume that Sunni Islam represents a normative Islam that emerged during the period after Muhammad's death, and that Sufism and Shi'ism developed out of Sunni Islam.[19] This perception is partly due to the reliance on highly ideological sources that have been accepted as reliable historical works, and also because the vast majority of the population is Sunni. Both Sunnism and Shiaism are the end products of several centuries of competition between ideologies. Both sects used each other to further cement their own identities and doctrines.

4. Sunni Islam is defined not by its allegiance to a particular individual (e.g., Ali and the ahl al-bayt) or institution (e.g., the Imamate), as Shiʿism is, but by following one of the four authentic schools of law that are envisaged as representing the true elaboration of Muhammad’s Sunna. These schools took generations to develop

5. The [9th C] caliph wanted the ulama to submit to his will and acknowledge him, as caliph, as the religious authority to guide all believers. One of the ulama who directly opposed the caliph was Ahmad b. Hanbal who, by any standard, was pivotal in the development of Sunnism... The ashãb sunna highlighted their accounts about the correct behavior of a Muslim rather than a caliph's opinion about what a Muslim should believe. Thus the first and most important tenet of Sunnism was established in opposition to the caliph's will and a momentous step was taken in the crystallization of Sunnism as we know it.

Is there any of the above you consider to be false or misleading? If you can't identify anything false, then you accept the truth of my statement that Sunni Islam emerged centuries later, and which you have studiously avoided addressing.

Your opinion is noted

 

[Augustus]

Your opinion is noted

The lengths you'll go to to avoid acquiring a slightly better understanding of an issue is really quite impressive

 

[ChristineM]

The lengths you'll go to to avoid acquiring a slightly better understanding of an issue is really quite impressive

Seems to me you are the one going to great lengths to tell me what i know while smothering it in ad hominem and doing everything you can to avoid the reason for the split in the faith.

 

[Augustus]

Seems to me you are the one going to great lengths to tell me what i know while smothering it in ad hominem and doing everything you can to avoid the reason for the split in the faith.

I'm telling you what you don't know, which is basically anything other than a superficial pop-culture understanding of a topic which is far more complex and nuanced than you are aware. We both know you have not read extensively on this issue, are you really so certain there couldn't possibly be some things you are unaware of?

Also an ad hominem is a personal attack in lieu of an actual argument. For example, saying someone is wilfully ignorant because they rejected out of hand the work of a dozen or so of the top secular scholars in their field and labelled them ignorant 'apologists' is not an ad hominem. The ad hominem is to label them as 'apologists' without making any attempt to address the substance of what they say and why it is outrageously false.

It's also not an ad hominem to say you are suffering from a textbook case of Dunning-Kruger when you insist it is 'objectively' true that a religious sect split from another centuries before it existed. That anything transmitted via a couple of hundred years of oral tradition before being written down can be said to be 'objective history' is a ridiculous degree of overconfidence caused by a lack of knowledge of the opacity of early Islamic history (and that's before considering that the same 'objective' sources think someone split the moon and flew around on a donkey).

 

[ChristineM]

I'm telling you what you don't know, which is basically anything other than a superficial pop-culture understanding of a topic which is far more complex and nuanced than you are aware. We both know you have not read extensively on this issue, are you really so certain there couldn't possibly be some things you are unaware of?

Also an ad hominem is a personal attack in lieu of an actual argument. For example, saying someone is wilfully ignorant because they rejected out of hand the work of a dozen or so of the top secular scholars in their field and labelled them ignorant 'apologists' is not an ad hominem. The ad hominem is to label them as 'apologists' without making any attempt to address the substance of what they say and why it is outrageously false.

It's also not an ad hominem to say you are suffering from a textbook case of Dunning-Kruger when you insist it is 'objectively' true that a religious sect split from another centuries before it existed. That anything transmitted via a couple of hundred years of oral tradition before being written down can be said to be 'objective history' is a ridiculous degree of overconfidence caused by a lack of knowledge of the opacity of early Islamic history (and that's before considering that the same 'objective' sources think someone split the moon and flew around on a donkey).

How sad

 

[Augustus]

How sad

I've found your posts quite funny actually

 

[ChristineM]

I've found your posts quite funny actually

Glad you enjoyed failing to show i was wrong.

 

[Augustus]

Glad you enjoyed failing to show i was wrong.

1. Sunni Islam did not appear in history fully formed; but that it emerged through a complex historical process, a process which yielded widespread Sunni self-awareness no earlier than the late 9th century

2. The name “Sunni” abbreviates a phrase that better clarifies the Sunni movement’s ideological parameters: “ahl al-sunna waʾl-jamaʿa” (the People of the Tradition [of Muhammad] and the Community). As with Shiʿism, however, it is imperative that we not regard this tradition as emerging fully formed at the time of Muhammad. On the contrary, it took time to develop, often in relationship to a series of legal and theological disputes, certain answers to which would emerge as “orthodox.” Although many of these answers would at a later date be taken to have existed at the time of Muhammad, there is no clear evidence that they did.

3. One common mistake is to assume that Sunni Islam represents a normative Islam that emerged during the period after Muhammad's death, and that Sufism and Shi'ism developed out of Sunni Islam.[19] This perception is partly due to the reliance on highly ideological sources that have been accepted as reliable historical works, and also because the vast majority of the population is Sunni. Both Sunnism and Shiaism are the end products of several centuries of competition between ideologies. Both sects used each other to further cement their own identities and doctrines.

4. Sunni Islam is defined not by its allegiance to a particular individual (e.g., Ali and the ahl al-bayt) or institution (e.g., the Imamate), as Shiʿism is, but by following one of the four authentic schools of law that are envisaged as representing the true elaboration of Muhammad’s Sunna. These schools took generations to develop

5. The [9th C] caliph wanted the ulama to submit to his will and acknowledge him, as caliph, as the religious authority to guide all believers. One of the ulama who directly opposed the caliph was Ahmad b. Hanbal who, by any standard, was pivotal in the development of Sunnism... The ashãb sunna highlighted their accounts about the correct behavior of a Muslim rather than a caliph's opinion about what a Muslim should believe. Thus the first and most important tenet of Sunnism was established in opposition to the caliph's will and a momentous step was taken in the crystallization of Sunnism as we know it.

 

[ChristineM]

1. Sunni Islam did not appear in history fully formed; but that it emerged through a complex historical process, a process which yielded widespread Sunni self-awareness no earlier than the late 9th century

2. The name “Sunni” abbreviates a phrase that better clarifies the Sunni movement’s ideological parameters: “ahl al-sunna waʾl-jamaʿa” (the People of the Tradition [of Muhammad] and the Community). As with Shiʿism, however, it is imperative that we not regard this tradition as emerging fully formed at the time of Muhammad. On the contrary, it took time to develop, often in relationship to a series of legal and theological disputes, certain answers to which would emerge as “orthodox.” Although many of these answers would at a later date be taken to have existed at the time of Muhammad, there is no clear evidence that they did.

3. One common mistake is to assume that Sunni Islam represents a normative Islam that emerged during the period after Muhammad's death, and that Sufism and Shi'ism developed out of Sunni Islam.[19] This perception is partly due to the reliance on highly ideological sources that have been accepted as reliable historical works, and also because the vast majority of the population is Sunni. Both Sunnism and Shiaism are the end products of several centuries of competition between ideologies. Both sects used each other to further cement their own identities and doctrines.

4. Sunni Islam is defined not by its allegiance to a particular individual (e.g., Ali and the ahl al-bayt) or institution (e.g., the Imamate), as Shiʿism is, but by following one of the four authentic schools of law that are envisaged as representing the true elaboration of Muhammad’s Sunna. These schools took generations to develop

5. The [9th C] caliph wanted the ulama to submit to his will and acknowledge him, as caliph, as the religious authority to guide all believers. One of the ulama who directly opposed the caliph was Ahmad b. Hanbal who, by any standard, was pivotal in the development of Sunnism... The ashãb sunna highlighted their accounts about the correct behavior of a Muslim rather than a caliph's opinion about what a Muslim should believe. Thus the first and most important tenet of Sunnism was established in opposition to the caliph's will and a momentous step was taken in the crystallization of Sunnism as we know it.

I will repeat for the hard of understanding, this is not about semantics. But about the origin of the rift that broke a religion in two.